ever cents. next on american history tv, ortizian roxanne discusses this topic. is theor dunbar ortiz author of a forthcoming book on immigration. the california historical society has to this event. it is just over an hour. hello everyone. my name is patty and i have the great honor of introducing you to roxanne ortiz. oklahoma and was involved in movements against of vietnam war and was one the founders of the women's liberation movement. she has worked with indigenous communities for land rights and to help build the national indigenous movement.

as well as the memoir trilogy and the award-winning book which i love very much indigenous peoples history of the united states. her new book is called loaded which i have right here the disarming history of the second amendment which you can buy tonight as well as her two other book that she shares co-authoring with. all books i would highly recommend. you can have them signed i heard tonight at the end of the program. this book was published in january and she will be writing a new book in 2019 about this idea which she will be discussing tonight about the nation of immigrants in the mythologies around that. i'm so excited to learn from her , i know you are to.

i will stop speaking so she can. i thank you all for coming tonight. save your questions until the end. i'm going to hand it over to roxanne. hello everyone. i am really happy to be here. i have not been inside this building before. i plan to come back. acknowledge that we in the unseeded territory of the shoe mosh nation. thanks to the wonderful california historical society for hosting my talk this evening

particularly i want to thank patientlyhas very organized this event including having to reschedule it due to my illness in january. and thank everyone who has this .vening i also thank c-span for being here you can watch it later on c-span. lasttty mentioned for the year i have been working on a new book tracing the origin and questioning the claim that the u.s. is a nation of immigrants. i would like to present some of .he ideas i have developed i am very interested in your feedback. i am a historian, and i believe that the ghosts of history and form our culture as well as our politics. until these ghosts but hunters

are acknowledged and courageously faced with its roots, this society is doomed to continue spiraling into violence, aggressive wars, continued oppression of the victims of the united state past's past around the world. we have a fundamental problem in the u.s. of white nationalism that is not new with trump and charlottesville. it is inscribed in the founding of the u.s.. the economy which is grounded in the violent theft of indigenous lands and slavery with settlers armed to the teeth throughout its history, and there population of 500 million in the

united states, -- with 300 million people in the united states, the number of guns in the population's hands is also 300 million. but on the a number of people on the guns. only 3% of the population own 50% of the firearms in civilian hands. >> this minority of gun owners, are mainly white men, descendents of the original settlers. i have of course the new book, "loaded," a history of the second amendment, tracing that history and the contemporary manifestations.

although this writing project on the nations immigrants -- on the nation's immigrants, tracing the dubious claim, the history about how it came to be a term -- it is the idea that the u.s. has always been a nation of immigrants. even from colonial times, 1607 on. so even though this book is in no way a memoir, i wanted to share with you my own family history, which i think is relevant to my expertise. my father's family, the dunbars are of scotch-irish descent. geithner up in rural oklahoma.

my family had left missouri in 1987 -- 1880 74 role land but then my grandfather lost the land in the 1920's. my grandfather.was a tenant farmer. there was a mass movement between 1720 and the war of independence. my family, most of them builds communities on the frontier illegally on unseeded indian land and they dominated their. by the time of u.s. independence, scots from scotland, and mainly scots from northern ireland, made up about 1/6 of the punctuation of the 13 colonies.

in some places like pennsylvania, one third of the population. many scots from scotland, not ulster, remained loyal to the danish crown. the ulster scots were at the forefront for independence however and from the backbone of washington's fighting forces. most of the names at valley forge were scotch irish, and some of them were my ancestors. they saw themselves as a true and authentic. the ones who spilled blood for independence and spilled rivers of blood, most of it indian blood to acquire land. leaving bloody footprints across the continent. the books written about the

frontier settlers fill libraries, but none will feel the dream of oscar--, an immigrant and a leader in the oklahoma socialist party in the 1910s. he wrote -- i wish someone would look up the news in the washington army of valley forge and trace the bloody footprints of their descendents across the american continent, until they were washed up and washed out on the shore of the pacific. what an all-american odyssey it could make what a great history of the rise and fall of american civilization. i have been trying to write that history all my adult life or scholarly life. during the last two decades, a the 18th century, first and second generation ulster scots

continue to move westward into the ohio valley illegally. west virginia was formed, then kentucky. once they were there, they would open a new colony and they were the predominant element in the western population movement, with non-scott settlers tending to culturally absorb these practices, and the culture that developed in the appalachians, like daniel boone, whose heritage is english and welsh. most of the scots were overwhelmingly frontier settlers rather than traders or merchants.

they killed indians, burned their crops, their villages, forming a wall of protection for the new united states. during times of war, they employed to their fighting skills effectively. they restlessly moved, three or four times before settling. the majority of the settlers were cash poor and had to indenture themselves to pay for passage to north america. but once settled, they came to dominate, especially as soldier settlers. perhaps most important, by the end of the 18th century, the scottish presbyterian church was the largest, strongest and most influential church in the colonies, next to new england's congregational church. ulster scot membership in the presbyterian church waned on the

frontier. but the new evangelical sects that were born retained calvinist doctrine, particularly the doctrine of a people of the covenant, commanded by god to go into the wilderness to build the new israel or zion. their ideology of white nationalism formed a bedrock of contemporary protestant evangelicalism. the recently deceased evangelical billy graham, southern baptist, the godhead of my southern baptist upbringing, was probably of scotch irish. his death was mourned and commemorated by protestants in ireland, as it was here, in the state funeral.

many descendents of the former trekkers moved on from kentucky to missouri, as my ancestors did, following the footsteps of daniel boone himself, who in his old age and many of my extended family, moved on to missouri, then to oklahoma. daniel boone died before that. so this was the trek of my ancestors. breaking every treaty with native americans, the federal government encouraged these settlers to overrun indigenous villages, burn their crops, seized their land, which they usually did and that it lost to agribusiness, that is slavers' plantations. many descendents of the frontier trekkers moved on to oklahoma,

where i grew up. for nearly 300 years, the english crown had offered free or cheap land to british presence. if a farming family fell on hard times but wanted greater opportunity, they moved on. homesteading "newly opened" territory. all of the arable land in the continent was private property, owned by euro americans, much of it by large operators in agribusiness and mineral extraction. millions of these white settlers were landless, like my father became. while many of those pushed off

the land poured into the cities to work, many many also stayed in the rural areas as migrant farmworkers, carpenters and miners, and later as roughnecks in the oil fields. scots irish and their descendents of the trekker cultures see themselves as the foot holders of a white republican empire. they consider themselves to be true nativeborn americans, the personification of what the united states is supposed to be, a white republic serving their needs and desires. they believe they are the ones who fought for and won the continent, and it is their right and duty to maintain its greatness. they also make up a large portion of the officer corps of the u.s. armed forces as well as willing soldiers in many u.s. interventionist wars. soldiers of the empire.

the descendents of these early settlers are thus the latter-day carriers of the united states national origin myth. a story which attempts to justify conquest and resettlement, transforming the white frontier settler into an indigenous people. believing that they are the true natives of the continent, much as the south african boers or afrikaners regard themselves as the true children of israel, established by a god-given covenant. and indeed, in northern ireland, the scots irish protestants, even today, believe that they have a covenant for that land

that they still occupied, northern ireland. none of these things are just history, you see. given the powerful influence of this culturally, religiously and politically minority demographic, it is essential to acknowledge its existence in order to understand persistent white supremacy and mistrust of non-european immigrants as well as descendents of indigenous north americans, enslaved africans, and mexicans as well as of chinese on the pacific side. since 1980, a growing anti-muslim bigotry. and although u.s. evangelicals enthusiastically support the state of israel which matches their religious belief that jesus will return when jews return to jerusalem, there is an

underlying jew hating in u.s. white nationalism. i am sure you saw it displayed on television during the charlottesville last august. in the 1940's, u.s. society and political order was confidently a white republic dominated by wealthy white men. african-american descendents of enslaved africans lived under totalitarian jim crow in the former confederate state, and were ghetto-ized and discriminated against when they skipped the south to the urban industrial areas. native nations were abandoned on shrunken land bases that cannot support life, so many migrated to work in nearby or faraway cities. irish, southern and eastern

european immigrants made gains in being accepted as possibly acceptable citizens, in so far as they embraced white supremacy and considered themselves white. on the west coast, u.s. citizens of chinese and mexican descent were discriminated against while u.s. citizens of japanese dissent were incarcerated in concentration camps and stripped of their property and citizen rights. migrant workers from mexico were under contract labor in the 1950's, without rights, for specific lengths of time. and during the 1950's, were deported in huge numbers. white men dominated at every level of society. but something revolutionary was also in process. the public emergence of an

african-american civil rights movement that would permanently alter everything. years of black resistance and organizing, centuries, and legal work manifested in the victory of the 1954 u.s. supreme court disaggregation of schools decision, with former california governor earl warren as chief of justice. in rural oklahoma, when i was a teenager, i heard and observed the fear and anger of the white rural people in that nearly all role --rld -- were rural county, and billboards appeared everywhere, calling for the impeachment of earl warren. this slice that i experienced as a teenager was happening all over the country among descendents of old white settlers. i know as a historian. i did not know that at the time. i thought we were just a little

bit peculiar. soon, the john birch society was launched by the wealthy sky and of the welch candy fortune, as well as the father of the current koch brothers who find white supremacist legislation and movement, and the privatization of everything. in the birchers, starting the then-nearly- all-white orange county, california, where richard nixon was born and prospered with the resurgence of white nationalism, they developed a mass base of middle-class white people, even suburban, and orange county was a suburb -- in a letter writing campaigns to lobby legislatures. they called it kitchen table politics, mostly women doing that work, to take over school boards and other local offices which carried on long beyond the

birchers themselves. of course, white citizen councils appeared all over the country. i read their literature as it was distributed in our rural baptist church and endorsed by the preacher. this was a counterrevolution that grew throughout the 1960's and 1970's, until it successfully brought ronald reagan to the presidency. all the while, the massive antiwar, black power, puerto rican independence, women, and gay movements were surging and transforming the social order for sure, changing the culture for the better. immigration restrictions were loosened to include larger quotas for non-europeans. the first highly visible sign of counterrevolution, i think

-- others may think of other for me, it seems to be as i observed it at the time, and have studied it, the evangelical antiabortion movement that sword in the late 1970's. it brought together outside are whites like the mormons, catholics, and evangelical protestants. that had never happened before. this was in reaction to the highly successful women's liberation movement during the previous decade, as well as the waser benign nra infiltrated and taken over by a white nationalist fascist organization in the state of washington, the second amendment foundation founded in 1974. it took them six years to take over the nra. and this is when the second amendment became a popular

cause. early in the civil rights revolution, in 1958, then senator john f. kennedy, himself a child of irish immigrants -- although very wealthy once -- published a best-selling book titled, "a nation of immigrants." he invented the term. it is a very interesting book. i even got it on amazon. it has been reprinted. i think this was the 1960 41, maybe later. 1964 one, maybe later. i think there is one in 1982 as well. so, this is a narrative under the moniker of nation of immigrants that has developed and comprises a revised origin

story of the united states in response to all of these social movements that were the civil rights movements, also the deep colonial revolutions around the world. the common, almost official practice of categorizing the united states as a nation of immigrants is problematic for many reasons, given the white supremacist origins and continued practice of u.s. immigration policy and practice. however, i wanted to discuss the concept of a nation of immigrants regarding how it works to obscure u.s. settler colonial history and the role of the old settlers of colonial history, into and after independence, of to about 1840. which preceded the founding of the united states.

it does not address the attempted total elimination of the indigenous and racial slavery. i should mention that on george washington's birthday, 2018, the trump administration's director of united states citizenship and immigration service changed its official mission statement and dropped the language of "nation of immigrants" to describe the united states, although not for the problems i object to the designation. on the contrary, it harkens back

to the unveiled white supremacist americanism. although immigrant bashing is not new, it has become more fraught of an issue as it has crystallized and accelerated in the early 21st century, primarily targeting mexicans and, increasingly, muslims. yet those who defend liberal immigration, mostly metropolitan liberals, and often some immigrants themselves, employee the idea of a nation of immigrants naively without considering the settler colonial history of the united states and the white nationalist ideology it reproduces. such advocates were caught by surprise and shocked in 2016 when media and stadium messaging of mexican-hating led to a successful presidential

election. the homogenization inherent in the concept of a nation of immigrants is further flattened when the generic and ahistorical terms latino, or latina, or euphemismse used as for what is actually mexican hating. cuban, not peruvian, mexican hating. u.s. slavers' conquest of the mexican province of texas beginning just after u.s. independence, followed by the united states military conquest and occupation of mexico,

1846-1848, led to the annexation of the northern half of mexico. white supremacy and settler colonialism are embedded in that questionably legal and always unstable lan and contested bord. a few early examples. in 1835, a u.s. army captain on a secret spy mission to mexico reported back that the indian race of mexico must recede before us is quite as certain as that is the destiny of our own. -- of our own indians. in the following year, 1836, a u.s. merchant on a trip into mexico wrote, "these mexicans are the meanest looking race of people i have ever seen. they don't appear more civilized than our indians, generally. dirty, filthy looking

creatures." and, the most revered u.s. poet, walt whitman, was an enthusiastic supporter of the u.s. war against mexico. in 1846, whitman proposed the stationing of 60,000 u.s. troops in mexico in order to establish regime change their, "whose efficiency and permanency should be guaranteed by the united states." he goes on, "this will bring on enterprise, open the way for manufacturers and commerce into which the immense capital of mexico will find its way. we can't see our country and its rule far-reaching. what has miserable, inefficient mexico to do with the great mission of peopling the new world with a noble race?" whitman explicitly grounded his view of mexicans and white supremacy, writing sometime

earlier, -- excuse the word -- "the nigger, like the engine will be eliminated." it is the law of races, of history. a superior grade of rats come, and then all the minor rats are cleared out. quite a poet. so, let us return to the funding of nation of immigrants -- john f. kennedy's volume of that name published in 1958, during his term as the u.s. senator of massachusetts. what is most striking to me is the fact that kennedy never once mentioned mexico or mexicans, nor did he use the current euphemisms, latino or hispanic. this is 1958, late in the period categorizeds were

in english as "one who swings his arms." they were under short-term contracts with no rights. more egregious in kennedy's mention of mexico or the border is the fact that operation wetback, its official name, was a program that continued beyond his senatorial career and into his presidency. operation wetback was a federal program to carry out the rounding of and forced deportation of more than one million mexican migrant workers, mainly in california and arizona, in the process subjecting millions of u.s. citizens of mexican descent, some who were actual u.s. citizens since the border was changed and made them u.s.

therens since they were in the northern half of mexico. they were all submitted to illegal search, seizure and arrest, and then often mistakenly deported. all of those deported under wetback during those years were deported from areas where they had actually come from and deported to central mexico, where they knew no one. of course, for those who were u.s. citizens and had never been there, they were stranded without documents to even be able to return to their homes in the united states. so it is mind-boggling that kennedy was not aware of any of

this and happened to mention immigrant. but he was talking about european immigrants. regarding the status of native nations in this nation of immigrants, kennedy wrote, "another way of indicating that importance of immigration in america is to point out that every american who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendent of immigrants. the exception, he wrote, is will rogers, our cherokee indians. he said his indians were at the docks to meet the mayflower. however, kennedy disagreed with will rogers. although he admired him. claiming that "some other -- anthropologists believe that indians themselves were immigrants from another continent, who displaced in the original settlers, they

aborigines." the a few pages on, the only other mention of native americans is when he refers to them as "the first immigrants," while dismissing their presence as scattered members of scattered pride. natives asenoting the first immigrants throughout the rest of the book, he uses the term for the original european settlers in the british colonies. equally unsettling, kennedy includes enslaved africans and their descendents as immigrants. although the book contains the same drawing of a slave ship with bodies chained down on their backs, with scarcely an inch between each, packed like africans enslaved called and chained thousands of miles from africa, naked and

forcibly removed. they were used not only for unpaid labor, but also their very bodies, considered private property to be bought and sold, soon creating a thriving legal slave market. internally, the total value of which, by 1840, was a greater monetary value than all other property together, including all the gold in circulation and banks. so this idea of the united states as a nation of immigrants came about in the late 1950's. it was a myth developed as a liberal response to 1950's civil , occurring ines the context of worldwide natural liberation movements.

in order to maintain economic, political, and military domination, the liberal faction of the united states ruling class, the rockefellers and so forth, and its brain trust sideways of responding to social demands while maintaining their power and position. offered multiculturalism, diversity, affirmative-action, the green revolution, agribusiness in the third world, and yes, the "nation of .mmigrants" ideology in response were demands for justice, socially quality, and end to u.s. imperialism. to offset excessive emphasis on , a nation ofry immigrants was sent to make the united states the greatest

country on earth and in history, which did not sit well with white supremacists. kennedy viewed john f. as one who could steer the state to order while maintaining status quo. the military-industrial complex was put into motion just in case. ing the 1950's, and began to control the liberated colonies, focusing on southeast asia. by the time kennedy becomes president and creates these special forces, war was under the horizon and turned into a military occupation under johnson. this only added to the fears and distress of the white

nationalists and accelerated the development of a distinctly right-wing, white supremacist republican party that, by the 1990's, came to dominate every level of government. one important item on their agenda was control of immigration, especially mexicans, and increasingly , asral americans in muslims the u.s. made wars against those countries, creating millions of more refugees which continues today. but also, by the early 1990's, storyves of immigrants kennedy had conceived was a consensus concept as an idea, and it is entered in the textbooks as the new national narrative. but also setting off textbook wars over history standards in the 1990's the right wing pushing and learning more pioneering

patriotism and founding fathers, the u.s. is the city on the hill, a bacon of freedom. in both the liberal and founding -- there is a misrepresentation of a process of european colonization of north america. toing everyone an immigrant preserve the official story of a mainly and mostly benign and benevolent in added states and to matt -- mask the fact that settlers who were settlers, just as they were in africa and india, the united states was founded as a settler colonial state and an imperialist one from its inception. the constitution, when it was written, defining u.s. citizen as a white male. beginning in the 1840's, the and came ---- fled

they were called, they were not really called immigrants at the time, but they have been and called themselves immigrants since then because clearly they were refugees desperate and there were no immigration laws. they came on ship and got off. there was no ellis island or angel island. they were followed by the influx of refugees from scandinavia and in eastern and southern european and chinese and japanese also arrived driven by economic necessity. although asian immigration was soon excluded. immigrant laws were not even enacted until 1875 when the u.s. supreme court declared the regulation of immigration as a federal responsibility.

and the immigration service was established in 1891. what is an immigrant? you know, in all do respect for california historical society and the new york historical society, certainly not alexander hamilton. british settlers are descendents and the british settler colony from the atlantic coast of north america and in the caribbean were free to move from colony to colony or to return to england and they were british citizens wherever they were. hamilton, born a british settler in the caribbean, moved to the new york colony, entered columbia university in 1772. but the blockbuster pulitzer prize-winning broadway play

"hamilton" the musical, based on a novelistic biography of founding father blockbuster pulitzer alexander hamilton, ron chreno, is a 21st century reenactment of national ideology. the create of "him a milton" the musical who was born and grew up in a walt think new york family ever puerto rican ever puerto -- puerto rican heritage presents himself as being a family of immigrants often stating this he reality of puerto rico whose residence has -- had been u.s. citizens by birth since 1917. they could live anywhere they wish within u.s. jurisdiction. so i will end there, and i think we have some q&a. thank you. [applause]

i cannot see because of the light. can you call on them? hello, hello, hello. there may go. the mike is ready. who would like to ask a question? >> thank you so much for your thoughts. so i have one question and a comment. i will start with the comment to segue into the question. i love that you ended with "hamilton" because everything you mentioned was my beef with the musical. in particular, because my own research, i look at the american museum of immigration that starts off right at the end of the 1950's and i am finding exactly what you are finding, this liberal ideology behind it.

alexander hamilton's great-great-grandson is behind the project. when it is pointed out to them that the work they are doing, which in the statue of liberty, forgets to mention latin american migration into the united states, he says, well, my great grandfather comes from the caribbean so we got ourselves covered. so i love that you bring him up because there is a way in which what you are saying, they are maintaining the status quo. right. these are white men who are perpetuating narratives and they are changing the language but they are maintaining the power. and one of the things that i find, in my own research, or the silence that i find, ingig us -- is that of indigenous population counter to this narrative, right? in the research, i find that there is an attempt of

an occupation of ellis island in a similar fashion. which is not really successful. but in the attempt to try and occupy the land, it is not withsarily in conversation of this popular narrative that takes hold in the 1960's and my 1970's. question is basically that -- what have you found is the indigenous response to this narrative? prof. dunbar-ortiz: to what? >> indigenous response to the narrative of the nation of immigrants? iff. dunbar-ortiz: i wonder mary jane would like to answer that. mary jean is an important native leader here in the bay area, also from oklahoma. do you want to say something about how you feeling? -- about how you feel? >> ok.

our response to the nation of immigrant narrative is really difficult to do a counter narrative to people in power. what you do is you sort of work , and createays -- from the american -- the society of american indians, who were the boarding school graduates. the early boarding school graduates who started narratives about whether we should go ahead and assimilate, or whether we should absolutely have self-determination. there is this debate going on amongst all of the different tribal people in the first place, as to what is the best way to successfully live,

because we are still facing a genocide. culturally if not literally, although, in a lot of places, it is a literal genocide. i just came across the most interesting fact, this week, i was reading an article about a law that was as passed in 1865, that said there will only be four reservations allowed in the state of california. the only way you can get around that is by an act of congress. has not been known by the californian indian people who are trying to get federal recognition. they are trying to go through the department of the interior, they are trying to go through the process but other states all have to go through. it always amazes me when i find

these weird laws that only apply to california. so it is a narrative where we created our own newspapers, the cherokee phoenix, the cherokee callate, to do what we public relation, which originally started as a way to do a counter narrative to corporatization of our lands. i don't know. is that -- prof. dunbar-ortiz: yeah. youngk, you know, scholars, of which there are many now, -- and i go to the american studies association. but especially american study association, there is a conference, there is an african-american caucus, there is asian caucus, lesbian, gay,

trans, everything, including immigration. we formed a marxist talk as a couple years ago. it is that kind of wonderful ,rganization you can actually you know, have all these people come together and intersect with each other. i think most of these native feel torn, as i do, because of the situation of immigrants. i think it is cruel that the hamilton thing is so cruel because it did get enthusiastic -- an enthusiastic response and reception by young immigrants and our children of immigrants. and it is cruel like doc i was

rather cruel. i kept saying to myself, don't give your information to ice. it's an executive order, it could change. and it is not safe. i think because we even convince the young people and children of immigrants that this is a nation of immigrants, that we don't you to build't allow them the tools and strategies that could really change things, rather than trying to be accepted. i think that is why the use of latino and hispanic -- people think mexican is a dirty word. i was on a panel once at my university and it was really just me and an awful right-winger who wanted to put through the affirmative action -- negating it in california. he was part of that.

it was him and me debating. but there was also a librarian. in wonderful woman. white woman. saying, mexicans, you know, to refer to mexicans. or mexican-american. or americans of mexican descent. and she said, i feel very uncomfortable because i would never call them mexicans. well, what do you call them? what do you call people? it is their nationality, you know? but there is this degrading, you know, degrading of mexicans, so i think this latino hispanic , you throw in cuban exiles who are anti-revolution, very conservative, ted cruz, that -- marco rubio.

texasu have, let's say, counterrevolutionaries from el paso southern texas who left mexico because of the 1912 revolution. and they are very conservative. a lot of them are republican. and then you have south americans who are usually from a lotor middle classes, of peruvians here in the bay colombians, venezuelans, but is not who they are talking about when they say latino immigration. they are talking about mexicans. we have to be clear about that -- in this book, i will have a ande chapter about the war occupation of mexico. because it was a brutal war. it is always passed over, if it

is included in history books at all. and it was also overseas war because the marine corp invaded through veracruz. they did counter insurgency, killing, may being -- maiming, raping, all the way to mexico city and occupied mexico city for months. starving people. people were eating rats. terrorizing them. texas rangers and the marines. and then, they finally defeat gun,ast mexican with a these cadets. and they had rifles. a few dozen of them. they held off the marines for a week. the young men of -- they really 15, 16 years old, were dead.

the marines set out and wrote there and them from the halls of montezuma to the shore of the tripoli. this brings up another question. why tripoli? the firstat was marine action. in north barbary wars africa. our history is so -- it's left out. i think everyone has heard that word. barbary war. but may not know what it is. -- that barbarian calms s ins from calling burbur north africa. barbarians. it really needs -- in my research, when i started last summer, the first thing i started researching, it's amazing how little literature or in then mexico

united states on the mexican war. there are a few books. but something people avoid. because -- i think the treaty of guadalupe come 1848, is an illegal treaty in international law. the gun put to the head of the government. most u.s. people think that the united states bought mexico for $5 billion. no, that is the way the u.s. does things. here is some pennies for taking half your country. also, the channel islands, the channel islands were not included in that treaty. in the oil, -- and the oil, all the profits made from offshore oil in the 1950's and 1960's,

from santa barbara to catalina, -- there has never been a possible mexican government of recolonization of mexico after the revolution. that will go to the world court, i know, isey do do, every time -- i don't know if trump has caught on to it, but start reallyey picking on mexico, and doing things coming you will suddenly see the president of mexico meet with the president or their secretary of state foreign minister and they talk about the channel islands. suddenly, policy changes.

backing up.e so they do use it behind the scenes, but i think we have to start thinking of that border -- here we are in california, where it is very important. also, we are stealing all the water from the colorado river water that is not getting to mexico. challenge the idea that mexicans don't have the right to cross the border anytime they want for any reason. sure, if they are criminals, you they are criminals. that is one thing. but that is like 1%, possibly. of the people who come here to work. so i think we should think in those terms. he have to be bolder and understand -- we have to be bolder and understand that we are not getting anywhere. any more questions?

thatjust wanted to add there are native nations that apache,e border, the the semantic, haitians, several of the southern californians the kickapoo.ss, there are some cherokees in mexico still. they don't follow the same borders, the borders crossed them. prof. dunbar-ortiz: yeah. when the people from tilde odom, they used to because something else, who crossed that border, when they try to put water out

side, reservation, on the they are terribly punished by the federal government. because these tribal councils are reliant on the federal government for funding. it is their own trust funds. that is very cool. they arrested one, michael, michael simpson, for putting out dehydratedhe migrants. really a cruel, and inhuman situation on the border there is already walls . all over the place that one wall , way outto the ocean into the ocean. tijuana. everyone should visit the

border. these things national lists, it was a big thing. it still is. that they were hunting down, beating up, torturing, these .igrants that they would find it is not so much in the news, but they are still down there. it is a major action going on for about 20 years now. people.terrorizing so i think we in california, or in the border states, have a special responsibility. of course, we are being sued by the federal government today. i am so proud of our attorney .eneral i just saw him licking his lips for he was on tv, ready this fight. it is really going to be interesting. and jerry brown. really angry.

it is a total lie, that everything attorney general sessions said today. we have a lot of responsibility right here. i hope we can keep these ideas about them andnk look a little bit more into this and when you are reading articles, think about, you know, what you are seeing and how it measures up against some of the things i have discussed. >> thank you again for this wonderful talk. have you had an opportunity to engage haitian american, historians, on this counter narrative? the general paradigm is is excluded as part of this immigration system. have you had a chance to have the broader discussion with haitian-american historians? prof. dunbar-ortiz: absolutely.

at how state hayward, where we set up an ethics study department, we included asian , chicano,tudies native american, and african-american. connie, sheague, taught me everything i know about it. she is retired now. she was teaching that two students and in our general ethnic study classes. the way i am doing this book, because of the chinese exclusion, -- there are so many books on immigration but are really good. a book fromommend beacon press.

it is called "you're taking our jobs: and 20 other myths about immigration." it is a small book, but in the same series as native of -- "native american myths." it really deals -- she is really good. they really are a lot of good works. i have read them all. in this book, i wanted to focus on the border and mexico and really argue that the best argument against these deportations that are taking place with children, old people, it is just horrible what is happening. i'm so proud of our mayor in oakland for speaking out really

courageously. i think that is the least treated. there is a really great literature. thank you for bringing that up. >> we have a reception and book signing. we want to thank you so much. [applause] >> i am going to sign books, i think. >> yes, you are. the book signing is going to happen at the table in the front and wine being served in the gallery. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] our nine week series, 1968, america in turmoil, is available as a podcast. you can find it on our website,

c-span.org/history. this is american history tv. only on c-span3. monday, on landmark v. thethe new york times united states. analyst former military daniel ellsberg released a top-secret pentagon study to the new york times and the washington post which fought the nixon administration to publish. the supreme court's decision restricted the government's power over the press and amendmentthe first protections. ar guests to discuss this is floyd abrams, representing the new york times and its case against the next and ted olson, general u.s. solicitor pier 1 landmark cases monday at medical at eastern on c-span. join the conversation. r #is landmark cases. htag isus at -- our has

landmark cases. follow us on facebook. announcer: this weekend on the presidency. we hear about dolly madison's political talent, and they work in partnership she forged with her husband james. to create a sense of personal and political excitement during their white house years. the president and ceo of the montpelier foundation recalls dolly's life and times and her political successes. here is a preview. we probably would never have butd about dolly madison, the yellow fever epidemic swept through philadelphia in 1793. in-laws bennett killed her husband and infant son on the same day. she was actually sick, but

recovered. she meetse congressman james madison, she has already had a lot of grief and her life. as is young widow with a toddler an, dolly started to attract fair share of interest in philadelphia. an acquaintance later wrote about her. her smile, her conversation, her manners, are so engaging, that it is no wonder that such a young widow with her fine blue eyes and large share of animation should be indeed a queen of hearts. some props next. she is a 26-year-old widow. he is a 43-year-old bachelor. [laughter] i couldn't help myself. she is voluptuous at five foot eight. he is a slender, -- if you like to me said he was 5'6".

if he didn't coming he was 5'2". on the surface, he they didn't have much in common. in the years ahead, their marriage would be a loving reunion and a political partnership that we have never seen the likes of. announcer: watch the entire program sunday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern on the presidency. tv, is american history only on c-span3. c-spaner: connect with to personalize the information you get from us. go to c-span.org/connect and sign up for the emailed. the program guide is a daily mail with the most updated primetime schedule, and upcoming live coverage. where forward gives you the most interesting daily video highlight in their own words. the book tv newsletter sent weekly is an insider's at upcoming authors and book festivals. the american history tv weekly newsletter gives you the

upcoming programming exploring our nation's past. andt c-span.org/connect sign up today. next on lectures in history, university of central florida professor yanek mieczkowski teaches a class about some of the people who challenged the status quo of the u.s. auto industry. from the post-world war ii era to the present day. andiscusses the successes failures of people such as harley earl, preston tucker, john delorean, and elon musk. his classes about 50 minutes. all right.kowski: today, we are studying the post-world war ii domestic scene. last class, we looked at the surging economy of the post-world war ii era and suburbanization. today, when i want to look at his cars in the post-world war ii era. i especially want to look at what i call the mavericks.